Well-Being Prevention & Cures

New federal form streamlines hospital complaint process

Here's what you need to know.

Story at a glance


  • The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has constructed a website for anyone who believes their rights under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) have been violated.

  • Hospitals found to have violated EMTALA risk losing federal Medicare funding, which is a significant source of money for nearly every American hospital.

  • The Biden administration has reminded hospitals that it considers an abortion part of the stabilizing care that EMTALA requires facilities to provide — setting up a Supreme Court fight with Idaho.

(NewsNation) — The federal government is making it easier for a patient to file a complaint about whether a hospital violated their rights, even as the law mandating stabilizing care for all is being challenged when it comes to abortion.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has constructed a website for anyone who believes their rights under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) have been violated.

Hospitals found to have violated EMTALA risk losing federal Medicare funding, which is a significant source of money for nearly every American hospital.

Passed in 1986, the act requires hospitals to treat patients to the point they’re stable, regardless of their ability to pay. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration has reminded hospitals that it considers an abortion part of the stabilizing care that EMTALA requires facilities to provide.

Idaho’s law bans abortions unless the mother’s life – not health – is in danger. Idaho’s attorney general contends that EMTALA requires hospitals to consider the health of the “unborn child” in its treatment as well as the mother. But some doctors say the law forces them to decide if a patient is close enough to death to treat.

Most states allow doctors to perform abortions to save the health of the mother. But if the Supreme Court upholds the Idaho law, other states might consider eliminating that exemption.

Supreme Court justices appeared divided on the issue when they heard oral arguments on the Idaho law last month.

Idaho’s “dangerous standard cannot be applied to the real-life situations faced in emergency departments every day,” said Jack Resneck, former president of the American Medical Association.

“There is no bright line when each patient’s condition suddenly reaches “life-threatening,” and deteriorating patients don’t want their physicians delaying care,” he said in a statement.


Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed..